Matching Items (5)
Description
This project examines and challenges the West's generally accepted two category approach to the world's belief systems. That is, it will deconstruct the religion / science `paradigm' that has developed over the past two centuries. It will argue that the dichotomy between the two categories was created by modernity for the purpose of establishing an exclusive view believed to be based on knowledge. This exclusive view, philosophical naturalism (science), was set in opposition to all alternative views identified as religion. As the exclusive view, though constructed on a defective foundation of knowledge, philosophical naturalism, nonetheless, became the privileged interpreter and explainer of reality in the academy of the Western world.
As a work in the area of epistemology and the philosophy of religion, this project will challenge philosophical naturalism's claim to knowledge. The approach will be philosophical and historical critically assessing both modernity's and postmodernity's basis for knowledge. Without a rational basis for exclusive knowledge the popular dichotomy dissolves. The implications of this dissolution for `religious studies' will be addressed by offering an alternative scheme that provides a more plausible way to divide the world's belief systems.
As a work in the area of epistemology and the philosophy of religion, this project will challenge philosophical naturalism's claim to knowledge. The approach will be philosophical and historical critically assessing both modernity's and postmodernity's basis for knowledge. Without a rational basis for exclusive knowledge the popular dichotomy dissolves. The implications of this dissolution for `religious studies' will be addressed by offering an alternative scheme that provides a more plausible way to divide the world's belief systems.
ContributorsTussing, Rodney W (Author) / Cady, Linell (Committee member) / Anderson, Owen (Committee member) / Gereboff, Joel (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
This thesis examines the role of the media and popular culture in defining the shape and scope of what we think of today as "science." As a source of cognitive authority the scientific establishment is virtually beyond dispute. The intellectual clout of science seemingly elevates it to a position outside the influence of the general population. Yet in reality the emergence and evolution of the public sphere, including popular culture, has had a profound impact on the definition and application of science. What science is and how it relates to the life of the ordinary person are hardly static concepts; the public perception of science has been molding its boundaries since at least the 18th century. During the Enlightenment "natural philosophy" was broadly accessible and integrated nicely with other forms of knowledge. As the years passed into the 19th century, however, science became increasingly professionalized and distinct, until the "Two Cultures" had fully developed. The established scientific institution distanced itself from the nonscientific community, leaving the task of communicating scientific knowledge to various popularizers, who typically operated through the media and often used the mantle of science to further their own social or political agendas. Such isolation from orthodox science forced the public to create an alternate form of science for popular consumption, a form consisting mainly of decontextualized facts, often used in contrast to other forms of thought (i.e. religion, art, or pseudoscience). However, with the recent advent of "Web 2.0" and the increasing prominence of convergence culture, the role of the public sphere is undergoing a dramatic revolution. Concepts such as "collective intelligence" are changing consumers of information into simultaneous producers, establishing vast peer networks of collaboration and enabling the public to bypass traditional sources of authority. This new hypermobility of information and empowerment of the public sphere are just now beginning to break down science's monolithic status. In many ways, it seems, we are entering a new Enlightenment.
ContributorsSmith, Robert Scott (Author) / Lussier, Mark (Thesis advisor) / Broglio, Ronald (Committee member) / Bivona, Daniel (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
This study investigated whether research by researchers affiliated with a religious academic institution would be seen as of less scientific merit than research done by researchers affiliated with a nonreligious academic institution. Such a bias may exist given the different value systems underlying religion and science, the widespread perception of a conflict between religion and science, and research on differences in cognitive styles and stereotypes about religious versus nonreligious people. In this study, U.S. participants recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk completed an online survey, which included an abstract of an article describing scientific research with authors’ names and academic institutions, and questions on perceived scientific merit, religiosity, spirituality, religion as Quest, and perceived conflict between religion and science. There was a significant difference in the perceived merit of the researchers, with the group believing the researchers were affiliated with a religious academic institution rating the research as lower in scientific merit than the group believing the researchers were affiliated with a nonreligious academic institution. The perceived level of conflict between religion and science was found to moderate the relationship, such that higher levels of perceived conflict between religion and science showed a greater difference in scientific merit between groups.
ContributorsPorter, Erik W (Author) / Hall, Deborah L. (Thesis advisor) / Mickelson, Kristin (Committee member) / Burleson, Mary (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
On 29 June 1988, in Bowen v. Kendrick, the US Supreme Court ruled in a five-to-four decision that the 1981 Adolescent Family Life Act, or AFLA, was constitutional. Under AFLA, the US government could distribute federal funding for abstinence-only sexual education programs, oftentimes given to groups with religious affiliations. As a federal taxpayer, Chan Kendrick challenged the constitutionality of AFLA, claiming it violated the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court found that although AFLA funded programs that aligned with certain religious ideologies, it was constitutional because it did not encourage government involvement in religion, and it held a valid secular purpose in seeking to prevent adolescent pregnancy and premarital sexual relations. By upholding AFLA, Bowen v. Kendrick enabled the US government to continue funding abstinence-only education, which researchers have found to be ineffective.
ContributorsNott, Rohini (Author) / Darby, Alexis (Editor) / Arizona State University. School of Life Sciences. Center for Biology and Society. Embryo Project Encyclopedia. (Publisher) / Arizona Board of Regents (Publisher)
Created2021-02-26
Description
Increasingly, college courses have transitioned from traditional lecture to student-centered active learning, creating more opportunities for students to interact with each other in class. Recent studies have indicated that these increased interactions in active learning can create situations where students’ identities are more salient, which could result in novel challenges for students with marginalized identities. Christianity has been shown to be a marginalized identity in the context of undergraduate biology courses, but it is unknown whether Christian students experience challenges in their interactions with other students in class. The social psychology framework of concealable stigmatized identity (CSI) was used to explore the experiences of Christian students during peer interactions in undergraduate biology courses. Thirty students were interviewed, and most felt their religious identity was salient during peer interactions in biology. Students also reported that they have more opportunities to reveal their religious identity in courses that incorporate peer discussion than in courses that do not. Students claimed that revealing their religious identity to their peers could be beneficial because they could find other religious students in their courses, grow closer with their peers, and combat stereotypes about religious individuals in science. Though most students anticipated stigma, which caused some students to choose not to reveal their religious identities, comparatively few had experienced stigma during peer interactions in their college biology courses, and even fewer had experienced stigma from peers who knew they were religious. These findings indicate that it be may important to teach students how to be culturally competent to reduce Christian students’ anticipated and experienced stigma in active learning courses.
ContributorsEdwards, Baylee Anne (Author) / Brownell, Sara E. (Thesis advisor) / Barnes, M. Elizabeth (Committee member) / Sterner, Beckett (Committee member) / Cooper, Katelyn M. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022